| Users Online Now: 2,101 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 856,301 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,534,457 | Threads Today: 507 | Posts Today: 10,830 |
| 03:13 PM | ||
| Users Online Now: 2,101 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 856,301 | |
| Pageviews Today: 1,534,457 | Threads Today: 507 | Posts Today: 10,830 |
| 03:13 PM | ||
For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27484739  United States11/10/2012 11:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede The declaration of independence was a writ of appeal to God for the redress of grievances, in effect an anullment between two peoples. They were two peoples divided by culture, geography, and political structure. Remember taxation without representation? That was a slogan of the colonists because they were not PART OF england, but rather colonies OF england. In essence they were saying either marry us to england or set us free from our bonds of engagement. They were never one people. The declaration was the last in a series of appeals that had been addressed to the king, parliament, and lower authorities before working its way up to the final supreme authority, God himself. Secession, however is not even close to the declaration of independence in legal stature. The states are already married. the people are one. A perpetual union is the bond of marriage of where the two peoples became one..and it began with the articles of Association in 1774 almost 2 years before the declaration of Independence. There is no mechanism for national divorce in such occurance. Simply put, the union endures forever. The colonies were an integral part of the British Empire, the people here were overwhelmingly the descendants of immigrants that had their origins in the British Isles, England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. They were united with the peoples of Britain under the authority of the Crown. As such, the Declaration of Independence was a writ of secession, no different from that of the Southern States in 1860 and 1861. When Virginia and New York adopted the Constitution they placed in their Articles of Ratification the caveat that if the States ever considered the union to be detrimental to the well being of the States, they reserved the right to break the bonds of union. This was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention, thus acknowledging the Right of Secession for all the States. Your argument is baseless and ill-informed. Your wrong. The colonies were posessions of Britian, but they were no more part of britian than Guam or Peurto Rico are part of the U.S.A....if Puerto Rico decided to opt for independece, this would be way different than if Florida voted to secede, because Florida is part of the union, puerto Rico is not, but merely a territory and has never gained admission to the Union as a state. The proof of this is in the fact that the colonies had no representation in Parliament. And as far as reserving the right to break the bonds of Union at the constitutional convention...this is erroneous too because the constitutional convention did not establish the Union. It was established in 1774...not 1787. Article 4:The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Guam and Puerto Rico both belong to the US as territories. They have less rights than the States because they are under the direct control of the Federal Government. They do not have the right to secede, and, according to the Supreme Court, Congress has the right to determine which parts of the Constitution apply to territories. You are wrong. |
| Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 14093935 United States11/10/2012 11:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 26160149 United States11/10/2012 11:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede There are people like freemen, that believe the United States was made a Corporation sometime in our past. If this is true, is there another way under their Corporate Law or Maritime Law that a State can secede?? |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27484739 United States11/10/2012 11:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27484739 Yes, we did. Delegates were elected to secession conventions. We wanted out, and it was, and is, legal.  This is a total misunderstanding of the Union. First of all, the consitutional convention and the states subsequent ratification post-date the formation of the union. The Union began with the articles of association in 1774. When you create a corporation, which is a seperate legal person, the inception of it is filed with your secretary of states office under articles of association. At this point, the corporation comes into being. It is a single entity. This entity (the Union) later declared independence...entered into a form of government called the articles of confederation...then dissolved that and replaced it with a new constitutional form of government...but it is and always has been one entity. A state can no more secede from the union than a hand or a foot can decide to secede from the body. Their are many parts, but they are all one body. One nation. Indivisible. The Articles of Association did not form the Union, read them. This is an agreement to boycott British goods, not a contract for perpetual union. How you can get that from this document is a mystery. And how you can really believe that the colonies were not legally subject to the British Crown is also a mystery. You logic is flawed and your argument is weak. The boycott was merely the first act of the Union, but the legal lineage of the Union traces back here to it's inception. Don't take my word for it...take Lincoln's (once again from his first Inaugural Adress): "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured ... by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." Why are quoting Lincoln's opinion? He was wrong. That is a fact. Your god was either ignorant, stupid or evil. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27484739 United States11/10/2012 11:25 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| TheHankMoody User ID: 26303374 United States11/10/2012 11:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 20676524 United States11/10/2012 11:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede The states voted to enter. They can just vote to leave. Quoting: samanthasunflower The problem with the Confederate states is that the people weren't allowed to vote to leave. Yes, we did. Delegates were elected to secession conventions. We wanted out, and it was, and is, legal. OF course we can vote to leave, legally. But the federal government will not recognize that fact. They didn't hesitate to wage war on our civilians before and likely would not as well. War criminals--check out the Admiral that declared rape legal in New Orleans because the women hated the crude union soldiers. But if you can vote yourself in, you can vote yourself out. sorry, republicans says you cannot succeed...so you can't |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 26978752 United States11/10/2012 11:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27041005 United States11/10/2012 11:34 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede Texas is an exception because it is a Independent Republic. Legally it is being held as an occupied spoil of war. Texas has already voted to claim their independence. All they have to do is enforce it. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 21438600 United States11/10/2012 11:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 14093935 United States11/10/2012 11:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede There are people like freemen, that believe the United States was made a Corporation sometime in our past. If this is true, is there another way under their Corporate Law or Maritime Law that a State can secede?? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26160149 Everyone seems to think of the U.S. as a corporation is some sort of big conspiracy. The reason is because when they think of corporations they envision like walmart or BP or something. The U.S. is a corporation...but not like in the way you think of a corporation. Ever see a population sign for a small town on the side of a road that says "Unincorpated?" All entities of two or more that legally unite to form one body are corporations, whether their purpose be for business or government or whatever...Corpus is merely latin for "Body". So if one part of the body that is not the head, tries to resist the will of the part that is the head...that's not secession...thats rebellion. When a child tries to run away from his parent, you would say that child is being rebellious. What the south did was a rebellion, plain and simple. Now had they originally formed a "non-perpetual" union, there might have been recourse to dissolve the Union at some point. But thats not what the founding fathers entered into...they created a perpetual union. Like a marriage, they intended it to last forever. |
IssueX  User ID: 14348632 United States11/10/2012 11:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede You people who are posting B.S. flags...you do realize that all I'm doing here is quoting Lincoln, right? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14093935 Lincoln was elected with less than 40% of the popular vote... having run on a radical Whig platform of tripling the nation's tariffs, a resurrection of the national bank, and tax funded subsidies to railroads and other corporate interests, Lincoln looked to bring about what Hamilton and his mentor Henry Clay could not people forget Lincoln was in the pocket of the northern bankers....so much so that he feared them almost more than he feared the southern generals I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe." ~ Abraham Lincoln Last Edited by IssueX on 11/10/2012 11:38 PM |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27261702 United States11/10/2012 11:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede More than that ,Lincoln was a war criminal and the so called Union is nothing more than a mafia .Only one way out, you get dead.. How is that liberty or justice? its not, its just fucking tyrannical bullshit thats been repeated so many times that numerous dumbshits believe it like it was gospel.People put the government in place to serve them not vice versa and when one party doesn't hold up their end of the contract the other party is at liberty to declare the contract null and void due to malfeasance.. |
| SaveUSa User ID: 20038946 United States11/10/2012 11:40 PM  Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede The declaration of independence was a writ of appeal to God for the redress of grievances, in effect an anullment between two peoples. They were two peoples divided by culture, geography, and political structure. Remember taxation without representation? That was a slogan of the colonists because they were not PART OF england, but rather colonies OF england. In essence they were saying either marry us to england or set us free from our bonds of engagement. They were never one people. The declaration was the last in a series of appeals that had been addressed to the king, parliament, and lower authorities before working its way up to the final supreme authority, God himself. Secession, however is not even close to the declaration of independence in legal stature. The states are already married. the people are one. A perpetual union is the bond of marriage of where the two peoples became one..and it began with the articles of Association in 1774 almost 2 years before the declaration of Independence. There is no mechanism for national divorce in such occurance. Simply put, the union endures forever. The colonies were an integral part of the British Empire, the people here were overwhelmingly the descendants of immigrants that had their origins in the British Isles, England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. They were united with the peoples of Britain under the authority of the Crown. As such, the Declaration of Independence was a writ of secession, no different from that of the Southern States in 1860 and 1861. When Virginia and New York adopted the Constitution they placed in their Articles of Ratification the caveat that if the States ever considered the union to be detrimental to the well being of the States, they reserved the right to break the bonds of union. This was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention, thus acknowledging the Right of Secession for all the States. Your argument is baseless and ill-informed. Ding Ding Within the surreal depths of "reality" lies the truth. |
| Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 14093935 United States11/10/2012 11:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14093935 The declaration of independence was a writ of appeal to God for the redress of grievances, in effect an anullment between two peoples. They were two peoples divided by culture, geography, and political structure. Remember taxation without representation? That was a slogan of the colonists because they were not PART OF england, but rather colonies OF england. In essence they were saying either marry us to england or set us free from our bonds of engagement. They were never one people. The declaration was the last in a series of appeals that had been addressed to the king, parliament, and lower authorities before working its way up to the final supreme authority, God himself. Secession, however is not even close to the declaration of independence in legal stature. The states are already married. the people are one. A perpetual union is the bond of marriage of where the two peoples became one..and it began with the articles of Association in 1774 almost 2 years before the declaration of Independence. There is no mechanism for national divorce in such occurance. Simply put, the union endures forever. The colonies were an integral part of the British Empire, the people here were overwhelmingly the descendants of immigrants that had their origins in the British Isles, England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. They were united with the peoples of Britain under the authority of the Crown. As such, the Declaration of Independence was a writ of secession, no different from that of the Southern States in 1860 and 1861. When Virginia and New York adopted the Constitution they placed in their Articles of Ratification the caveat that if the States ever considered the union to be detrimental to the well being of the States, they reserved the right to break the bonds of union. This was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention, thus acknowledging the Right of Secession for all the States. Your argument is baseless and ill-informed. Your wrong. The colonies were posessions of Britian, but they were no more part of britian than Guam or Peurto Rico are part of the U.S.A....if Puerto Rico decided to opt for independece, this would be way different than if Florida voted to secede, because Florida is part of the union, puerto Rico is not, but merely a territory and has never gained admission to the Union as a state. The proof of this is in the fact that the colonies had no representation in Parliament. And as far as reserving the right to break the bonds of Union at the constitutional convention...this is erroneous too because the constitutional convention did not establish the Union. It was established in 1774...not 1787. Article 4:The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Guam and Puerto Rico both belong to the US as territories. They have less rights than the States because they are under the direct control of the Federal Government. They do not have the right to secede, and, according to the Supreme Court, Congress has the right to determine which parts of the Constitution apply to territories. You are wrong. Guam and Puerto Rico could petition Congress to request independence because they are not part of the Union...just as they could also ask congress to be admitted to the Union as a State. The Colonies at first wanted representatation in Parliament before they declared independence...and the latter was issued only after exhausting all attempts to rectify the situation with Parliament and later the king himself. Florida however can not seek independence because it is one with the USA...an entity can not secede from itself. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27484739 United States11/10/2012 11:48 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede There are people like freemen, that believe the United States was made a Corporation sometime in our past. If this is true, is there another way under their Corporate Law or Maritime Law that a State can secede?? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26160149 Everyone seems to think of the U.S. as a corporation is some sort of big conspiracy. The reason is because when they think of corporations they envision like walmart or BP or something. The U.S. is a corporation...but not like in the way you think of a corporation. Ever see a population sign for a small town on the side of a road that says "Unincorpated?" All entities of two or more that legally unite to form one body are corporations, whether their purpose be for business or government or whatever...Corpus is merely latin for "Body". So if one part of the body that is not the head, tries to resist the will of the part that is the head...that's not secession...thats rebellion. When a child tries to run away from his parent, you would say that child is being rebellious. What the south did was a rebellion, plain and simple. Now had they originally formed a "non-perpetual" union, there might have been recourse to dissolve the Union at some point. But thats not what the founding fathers entered into...they created a perpetual union. Like a marriage, they intended it to last forever. Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788. (1) Virginia to wit We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions and under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the Union into danger by a delay with a hope of obtaining Amendments previous to the Ratification, We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed in the Words following; . Done in Convention this twenty Sixth day of June one thousand seven hundred and eighty eight By Order of the Convention EDMD PENDLETON President [SEAL.] This was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention, this is law. Secession is legal. Lincoln was a tyrant and a liar. Game, set, match. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27399706 United States11/10/2012 11:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede Go read Lincoln's first inaugural address...and I quote: Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14093935 "I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever – it being impossible to destroy it, except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself." -Abraham Lincoln Secession is just plain stupid. Quit living in 1861 and start being an American...not a Texan or louisianan or etc etc....This is "ONE" nation under God. The Union is perpetual...forever. Fuck Lincoln and the Constitution. If a state wanted to secede they would just do it. The problem is the states were taken over by DC criminals at the time of the Civil War. That's what it was really about! |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27484739 United States11/10/2012 11:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede atification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788. (1) WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known. That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security. That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are essential rights which every Government ought to respect and preserve. That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27484739 United States11/10/2012 11:57 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27484739 The colonies were an integral part of the British Empire, the people here were overwhelmingly the descendants of immigrants that had their origins in the British Isles, England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. They were united with the peoples of Britain under the authority of the Crown. As such, the Declaration of Independence was a writ of secession, no different from that of the Southern States in 1860 and 1861. When Virginia and New York adopted the Constitution they placed in their Articles of Ratification the caveat that if the States ever considered the union to be detrimental to the well being of the States, they reserved the right to break the bonds of union. This was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention, thus acknowledging the Right of Secession for all the States. Your argument is baseless and ill-informed. Your wrong. The colonies were posessions of Britian, but they were no more part of britian than Guam or Peurto Rico are part of the U.S.A....if Puerto Rico decided to opt for independece, this would be way different than if Florida voted to secede, because Florida is part of the union, puerto Rico is not, but merely a territory and has never gained admission to the Union as a state. The proof of this is in the fact that the colonies had no representation in Parliament. And as far as reserving the right to break the bonds of Union at the constitutional convention...this is erroneous too because the constitutional convention did not establish the Union. It was established in 1774...not 1787. Article 4:The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State. Guam and Puerto Rico both belong to the US as territories. They have less rights than the States because they are under the direct control of the Federal Government. They do not have the right to secede, and, according to the Supreme Court, Congress has the right to determine which parts of the Constitution apply to territories. You are wrong. Guam and Puerto Rico could petition Congress to request independence because they are not part of the Union...just as they could also ask congress to be admitted to the Union as a State. The Colonies at first wanted representatation in Parliament before they declared independence...and the latter was issued only after exhausting all attempts to rectify the situation with Parliament and later the king himself. Florida however can not seek independence because it is one with the USA...an entity can not secede from itself. Wrong. |
| Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 14093935 United States11/10/2012 11:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede There are people like freemen, that believe the United States was made a Corporation sometime in our past. If this is true, is there another way under their Corporate Law or Maritime Law that a State can secede?? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26160149 Everyone seems to think of the U.S. as a corporation is some sort of big conspiracy. The reason is because when they think of corporations they envision like walmart or BP or something. The U.S. is a corporation...but not like in the way you think of a corporation. Ever see a population sign for a small town on the side of a road that says "Unincorpated?" All entities of two or more that legally unite to form one body are corporations, whether their purpose be for business or government or whatever...Corpus is merely latin for "Body". So if one part of the body that is not the head, tries to resist the will of the part that is the head...that's not secession...thats rebellion. When a child tries to run away from his parent, you would say that child is being rebellious. What the south did was a rebellion, plain and simple. Now had they originally formed a "non-perpetual" union, there might have been recourse to dissolve the Union at some point. But thats not what the founding fathers entered into...they created a perpetual union. Like a marriage, they intended it to last forever. Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788. (1) Virginia to wit We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions and under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the Union into danger by a delay with a hope of obtaining Amendments previous to the Ratification, We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed in the Words following; . Done in Convention this twenty Sixth day of June one thousand seven hundred and eighty eight By Order of the Convention EDMD PENDLETON President [SEAL.] This was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention, this is law. Secession is legal. Lincoln was a tyrant and a liar. Game, set, match. Actually this proves my argument. All this is saying is that the people of the United States have the right to withdraw from the constitution if the powers under it are perverted to their injury or oppression. In fact they could do this...the states could form a new constitutional convention and dissolve the old consititution, just as they did the articles of confederation in 1789. As long as enough states ratify it, it would be legal. But that is NOT secession. The union of the stated would still stand even if they picked a new constitution for the nation. The Union stood before the constitution ever existed...so your confusing the constitution with the Union. There IS a legal mechanism to create a new constitution. There IS NOT a legal mechanism for a state to secede from the Union. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27261702 United States11/11/2012 12:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 14093935 United States11/11/2012 12:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede atification of the Constitution by the State of New York; July 26, 1788. (1) Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27484739 WE the Delegates of the People of the State of New York, duly elected and Met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the seventeenth day of September, in the year One thousand Seven hundred and Eighty seven, by the Convention then assembled at Philadelphia in the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania (a Copy whereof precedes these presents) and having also seriously and deliberately considered the present situation of the United States, Do declare and make known. That all Power is originally vested in and consequently derived from the People, and that Government is instituted by them for their common Interest Protection and Security. That the enjoyment of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are essential rights which every Government ought to respect and preserve. That the Powers of Government may be reassumed by the People, whensoever it shall become necessary to their Happiness; that every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by the said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the People of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they may have granted the same; And that those Clauses in the said Constitution, which declare, that Congress shall not have or exercise certain Powers, do not imply that Congress is entitled to any Powers not given by the said Constitution; but such Clauses are to be construed either as exceptions to certain specified Powers, or as inserted merely for greater Caution. And who are "We the people"? The people in congress assembled are not the same as "the state". Secession of a state is rebellion against the People of all states...just as if 3/4 of the states decided to ratify a new amendment, but a couple dissenting states tried to say they were not going to honor it. They couldn't...it would be rebellion. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27484739 United States11/11/2012 12:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede There are people like freemen, that believe the United States was made a Corporation sometime in our past. If this is true, is there another way under their Corporate Law or Maritime Law that a State can secede?? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 26160149 Everyone seems to think of the U.S. as a corporation is some sort of big conspiracy. The reason is because when they think of corporations they envision like walmart or BP or something. The U.S. is a corporation...but not like in the way you think of a corporation. Ever see a population sign for a small town on the side of a road that says "Unincorpated?" All entities of two or more that legally unite to form one body are corporations, whether their purpose be for business or government or whatever...Corpus is merely latin for "Body". So if one part of the body that is not the head, tries to resist the will of the part that is the head...that's not secession...thats rebellion. When a child tries to run away from his parent, you would say that child is being rebellious. What the south did was a rebellion, plain and simple. Now had they originally formed a "non-perpetual" union, there might have been recourse to dissolve the Union at some point. But thats not what the founding fathers entered into...they created a perpetual union. Like a marriage, they intended it to last forever. Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788. (1) Virginia to wit We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions and under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the Union into danger by a delay with a hope of obtaining Amendments previous to the Ratification, We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed in the Words following; . Done in Convention this twenty Sixth day of June one thousand seven hundred and eighty eight By Order of the Convention EDMD PENDLETON President [SEAL.] This was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention, this is law. Secession is legal. Lincoln was a tyrant and a liar. Game, set, match. Actually this proves my argument. All this is saying is that the people of the United States have the right to withdraw from the constitution if the powers under it are perverted to their injury or oppression. In fact they could do this...the states could form a new constitutional convention and dissolve the old consititution, just as they did the articles of confederation in 1789. As long as enough states ratify it, it would be legal. But that is NOT secession. The union of the stated would still stand even if they picked a new constitution for the nation. The Union stood before the constitution ever existed...so your confusing the constitution with the Union. There IS a legal mechanism to create a new constitution. There IS NOT a legal mechanism for a state to secede from the Union. Wow, I cannot believe what you just said. Do you know anything at all about the ratification of the Constitution? The States did not fall under its jurisdiction until they ratified it. The Constitution became operational in April, 1789, Vermont functioned as an independent republic until it ratified the Constitution in 1791. So did Rhode Island until 1790 and North Carolina until seven months after the Constitution took effect and George Washington became president. This proves that the States were, and are, Sovereign, and the Federal Government is a creature of the States. You are wrong. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27484739 United States11/11/2012 12:16 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27484739 Yes, we did. Delegates were elected to secession conventions. We wanted out, and it was, and is, legal. This is a total misunderstanding of the Union. First of all, the consitutional convention and the states subsequent ratification post-date the formation of the union. The Union began with the articles of association in 1774. When you create a corporation, which is a seperate legal person, the inception of it is filed with your secretary of states office under articles of association. At this point, the corporation comes into being. It is a single entity. This entity (the Union) later declared independence...entered into a form of government called the articles of confederation...then dissolved that and replaced it with a new constitutional form of government...but it is and always has been one entity. A state can no more secede from the union than a hand or a foot can decide to secede from the body. Their are many parts, but they are all one body. One nation. Indivisible. The Articles of Association did not form the Union, read them. This is an agreement to boycott British goods, not a contract for perpetual union. How you can get that from this document is a mystery. And how you can really believe that the colonies were not legally subject to the British Crown is also a mystery. You logic is flawed and your argument is weak. The boycott was merely the first act of the Union, but the legal lineage of the Union traces back here to it's inception. Don't take my word for it...take Lincoln's (once again from his first Inaugural Adress): "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured ... by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement." Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848 So, Lincoln also believed in Secession, before he sold out to the corporations. Hypocrite. |
| Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 14093935 United States11/11/2012 12:22 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14093935 Everyone seems to think of the U.S. as a corporation is some sort of big conspiracy. The reason is because when they think of corporations they envision like walmart or BP or something. The U.S. is a corporation...but not like in the way you think of a corporation. Ever see a population sign for a small town on the side of a road that says "Unincorpated?" All entities of two or more that legally unite to form one body are corporations, whether their purpose be for business or government or whatever...Corpus is merely latin for "Body". So if one part of the body that is not the head, tries to resist the will of the part that is the head...that's not secession...thats rebellion. When a child tries to run away from his parent, you would say that child is being rebellious. What the south did was a rebellion, plain and simple. Now had they originally formed a "non-perpetual" union, there might have been recourse to dissolve the Union at some point. But thats not what the founding fathers entered into...they created a perpetual union. Like a marriage, they intended it to last forever. Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788. (1) Virginia to wit We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions and under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the Union into danger by a delay with a hope of obtaining Amendments previous to the Ratification, We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed in the Words following; . Done in Convention this twenty Sixth day of June one thousand seven hundred and eighty eight By Order of the Convention EDMD PENDLETON President [SEAL.] This was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention, this is law. Secession is legal. Lincoln was a tyrant and a liar. Game, set, match. Actually this proves my argument. All this is saying is that the people of the United States have the right to withdraw from the constitution if the powers under it are perverted to their injury or oppression. In fact they could do this...the states could form a new constitutional convention and dissolve the old consititution, just as they did the articles of confederation in 1789. As long as enough states ratify it, it would be legal. But that is NOT secession. The union of the stated would still stand even if they picked a new constitution for the nation. The Union stood before the constitution ever existed...so your confusing the constitution with the Union. There IS a legal mechanism to create a new constitution. There IS NOT a legal mechanism for a state to secede from the Union. Wow, I cannot believe what you just said. Do you know anything at all about the ratification of the Constitution? The States did not fall under its jurisdiction until they ratified it. The Constitution became operational in April, 1789, Vermont functioned as an independent republic until it ratified the Constitution in 1791. So did Rhode Island until 1790 and North Carolina until seven months after the Constitution took effect and George Washington became president. This proves that the States were, and are, Sovereign, and the Federal Government is a creature of the States. You are wrong. You really can't tell the difference between the Union and the Consitution? The independent states are not the soverigns...the UNITED STATES is soverign. The declaration of independence doesn't say virginia, new jersey, deleware etc. declare independence...it said THE UNITED STATES declared independence. If you think that the Union begins with in 1789...then what do you think existed before then? The UNITED states = UNION. The states can change or create a new constitution...they can NOT secede from the UNION. The UNION is the soveriegn...NOT the Florida, Texas, etc... |
| Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 14093935 United States11/11/2012 12:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 14093935 This is a total misunderstanding of the Union. First of all, the consitutional convention and the states subsequent ratification post-date the formation of the union. The Union began with the articles of association in 1774. When you create a corporation, which is a seperate legal person, the inception of it is filed with your secretary of states office under articles of association. At this point, the corporation comes into being. It is a single entity. This entity (the Union) later declared independence...entered into a form of government called the articles of confederation...then dissolved that and replaced it with a new constitutional form of government...but it is and always has been one entity. A state can no more secede from the union than a hand or a foot can decide to secede from the body. Their are many parts, but they are all one body. One nation. Indivisible. The Articles of Association did not form the Union, read them. This is an agreement to boycott British goods, not a contract for perpetual union. How you can get that from this document is a mystery. And how you can really believe that the colonies were not legally subject to the British Crown is also a mystery. You logic is flawed and your argument is weak. The boycott was merely the first act of the Union, but the legal lineage of the Union traces back here to it's inception. Don't take my word for it...take Lincoln's (once again from his first Inaugural Adress): "The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured ... by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement." Lincoln on the floor of Congress, 13 January 1848 So, Lincoln also believed in Secession, before he sold out to the corporations. Hypocrite. Again this is not talking about secession. If the people wanted to create a new constitution and hold a new constitional convention...they could do so. It would require a 3/4 majority of all the states. |
| IssueX User ID: 14348632 United States11/11/2012 12:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede Have you re-watched the excellent Ken Burns documentary recently? worth it, imho: [link to garmonelec.sytes.net] [link to garmonelec.sytes.net] [link to garmonelec.sytes.net] [link to garmonelec.sytes.net] [link to garmonelec.sytes.net] [link to garmonelec.sytes.net] [link to garmonelec.sytes.net] [link to garmonelec.sytes.net] [link to garmonelec.sytes.net] also here: What is interesting is to watch the first episode and listen to the mood of the nation at the time this is the electoral college map of 1860, fwiw: [link to upload.wikimedia.org] vs 2012 [link to www.gophoto.it] Last Edited by IssueX on 11/11/2012 12:32 AM |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 1246336 United States11/11/2012 12:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27278377 United States11/11/2012 12:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede I don't get the whole petitions to secede from the US? Why are you guys even bothering? I hate to break it to you but having 20,000 people from all over the US vote for one state to secede is not going to do anything. Surely, they'll think you guys are just nuts and not worth listening to, especially considering they aren't even residents of said state. Think about it ;) Quoting: TheHankMoody 26303374 If those same 20k petition their State Representatives as well, it could become something. Also it is for publicity to get the whole country to consider such a thing. |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 27484739 United States11/11/2012 01:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Re: For all you secessiontards, sorry, but there is no legal mechanism that allows a state to secede ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27484739 Ratification of the Constitution by the State of Virginia; June 26, 1788. (1) Virginia to wit We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any Department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: & that among other essential rights the liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by any authority of the United States. With these impressions with a solemn appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the purity of our intentions and under the conviction that whatsoever imperfections may exist in the Constitution ought rather to be examined in the mode prescribed therein than to bring the Union into danger by a delay with a hope of obtaining Amendments previous to the Ratification, We the said Delegates in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia do by these presents assent to and ratify the Constitution recommended on the seventeenth day of September one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven by the Federal Convention for the Government of the United States hereby announcing to all those whom it may concern that the said Constitution is binding upon the said People according to an authentic Copy hereto annexed in the Words following; . Done in Convention this twenty Sixth day of June one thousand seven hundred and eighty eight By Order of the Convention EDMD PENDLETON President [SEAL.] This was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention, this is law. Secession is legal. Lincoln was a tyrant and a liar. Game, set, match. Actually this proves my argument. All this is saying is that the people of the United States have the right to withdraw from the constitution if the powers under it are perverted to their injury or oppression. In fact they could do this...the states could form a new constitutional convention and dissolve the old consititution, just as they did the articles of confederation in 1789. As long as enough states ratify it, it would be legal. But that is NOT secession. The union of the stated would still stand even if they picked a new constitution for the nation. The Union stood before the constitution ever existed...so your confusing the constitution with the Union. There IS a legal mechanism to create a new constitution. There IS NOT a legal mechanism for a state to secede from the Union. Wow, I cannot believe what you just said. Do you know anything at all about the ratification of the Constitution? The States did not fall under its jurisdiction until they ratified it. The Constitution became operational in April, 1789, Vermont functioned as an independent republic until it ratified the Constitution in 1791. So did Rhode Island until 1790 and North Carolina until seven months after the Constitution took effect and George Washington became president. This proves that the States were, and are, Sovereign, and the Federal Government is a creature of the States. You are wrong. You really can't tell the difference between the Union and the Consitution? The independent states are not the soverigns...the UNITED STATES is soverign. The declaration of independence doesn't say virginia, new jersey, deleware etc. declare independence...it said THE UNITED STATES declared independence. If you think that the Union begins with in 1789...then what do you think existed before then? The UNITED states = UNION. The states can change or create a new constitution...they can NOT secede from the UNION. The UNION is the soveriegn...NOT the Florida, Texas, etc... You really cannot see that you are wrong? Look at the Declaration here: [link to upload.wikimedia.org] Notice that it says the united States of America, united not capitalised, States capitalised. Treaty of Paris, 1783: Article 1: His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof. You see that it is the States that are "free sovereign and independent". |
